G. Thompson
Follow-up from last time:
What's meant by academic criticism? Discuss.
Using the term suggests a binary between academic and . . . what? Popular? Probably more of a spectrum. The distinction is blurred by on-line media, which frequently are anonymous and rapidly done--these can be authoritative but limited, sometimes sloppy, sometimes useful for tracing other sources.
Wikipedia is somewhere in-between. There was a selective study years ago which, on one entry, concluded that the crowd-sourcing of Wikipedia produced an entry as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. OK, but that doesn't carry all the way down--with more abstruse entries, you can't be confident. You can use it sometimes to trace other sources and to get a quick overview, but it's not an academic source, as the peer review process isn't systematic in the same way.
Academic criticism is produced by a more careful process which makes its authority more reliable. Not absolutely, of course, as the considered opinion of experts changes over time--we ask different questions of Ibsen after feminism than before, for example. But the process usually involves blind review by readers who have published in the field, and this goes not only for singular articles sent to publications, but for publishers of books as well.
Newspaper and journal reviews have to be more timely and so don't get this level of scrutiny--rather, a well-informed by perhaps more superficial and definitely shorter reading comes out--useful for an overview, but produced without really digging down.
A site such as academia.edu doesn't have peer review, so there you have to be more careful of eccentric positions.
So at the audience end, how can you tell? There are some quick and dirty tests:
Paratext. Look at the title and how it sounds. That will tell you a lot about the audience. Look for an index, in the case of books. Look for end notes or footnotes--again, what's the tone?
Named author. What else has she / he written? Is there an academic affiliation? Anonymous articles are likely not to be academic.
Citations in text. The sense is that an academic article is entering a conversation, and conventionally will refer to others who have written on the subject, often to make the case for the article's or book's originality or worthiness for publication.
Audience--the presumption is that the audience is already part of this conversation, and doesn't need to hear about the basics now.
[examples if there's time]
Take Ibsen off the list of writers for whom there is critical material. There's a fair amount written about Ibsen, but not about this play. I have a book requested via ILL which has one article that (according to Google Scholar) looks promising, but those who write about Ibsen choose other plays--Hedda Gabler, A Doll House, Ghosts, Rosmersholm keep coming up in bibliographies.
I'm mixed about the choice of texts. Miller's adaptation makes Dr. Stockmann into a less ambiguous figure than Ibsen makes him out to be--perhaps in keeping with the particular axe that Miller had to grind. But that fits with our theme in a larger sense.
On another topic: "Purgation of pity and fear"--I want to look further at this idea, as I wasn't satisfied with my answer. Perhaps I was OK with what Aristotle meant for ancient Greece, and the point of tragedy was to moderate problematic tendencies in the culture, so that people lived more moderate and therefore happier lives. We have different values--moderation isn't always something we prize. (What are some ways in which we glorify going to extremes? Giving 110%? Being passionate, all in, committed, etc.? Sharapova beat Halep because she wanted it more?) So how does catharsis work for us?
Where do we find extreme representations of fear? Perhaps in horror movies? The director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre died recently . . . what's the appeal of these films? Do people come out of them feeling more relaxed and moderate? (Or "F*ck yeah!)
Extremes of pity? In addition to the sort of condescension that Breanna mentioned, there's also the related potential of sentimentality--weepy, tear-jerking movies. Examples? What's the appeal? The classic justification is to teach and entertain, but what are we taught? Chance / God / destiny is cruel? Depends on the example, I suppose, but one danger in sentimentality is that there may be a representation of a real problem which we don't address but feel good about because of the drama.
Sentimentality may be somewhat subjective--you can get into fights if one person sees a film or TV show as emotional and real, another as soppy and manipulative. I felt that way about the TV series this summer, Big Little Lies, which got very positive reviews and which I couldn't get past an episode and a half of.
Wherever we find it, sentimentality is problematic because of a kind of self-indulgence. If I become overly sentimental toward a representation (e.g., the maimed animals in the infamous Sarah McLachlan ASPCA videos), part of me feels good about myself for having the right emotions. Look at me--I'm a good person because I feel sorry for these poor animals. Often with sentimental appeals, the emotion is enough--I don't necessarily kick in a donation, but I feel good about myself nonetheless.
Ibsen doesn't do that here or elsewhere. An Enemy of the People is one of his "social problem" plays, one which presents a fully realized and domesticated version of issues current in European liberalism. Norway was politically aligned with Denmark, and along with Scandinavia was (as it is today) very progressive for the time--Ibsen's plays dig beneath that civilized veneer just a bit.
[Notes about Ibsen generally--pare away the Doll House references:
Chronology, xiii-xv. Ibsen born 30 March 1828 in SE Norway; at age 15 moved to isolated seaport to work as apothecary’s assistant; wrote poetry and attended to his education. age 18, took univ. exams, but didn’t make it in Greek and math; began working at age 23 for National Theater in Bergen, learning stagecraft; age 29, artistic director of Norwegian Theater in Christiana (Oslo); married; career went downhill; 1862, produced “a small masterpiece” which was rejected by his theater; on a travel grant from country, left Norway in 1864 and stayed away for 27 years; settled in Rome and wrote Brand (1865) and Peer Gynt, (1866) first work which is still recognized. It's important to see Ibsen as in self-imposed exile, living in parts of Europe further south but writing about his homeland, in his language.
Brand is “a verse allegory about an uncompromising idealist whose unyielding virtues wreak havoc in his life”–received support from Norwegian govt.
1871–moved to Dresden–wrote Emperor and Galilean–first play setting up “philosophical ideas, each linked thematically from play to play.” 1875–resides in Munich–turn to “contemporary realism” with The Pillars of Society, A Doll’s House (1879)–published in Copenhagen and produced just before Xmas–“a genuinely European phenomenon.”
Ghosts, 1881; to Rome–An Enemy of the People, 1882;
The Wild Duck, 1884; to Munich–Rosmersholm, The Lady from the Sea, Hedda Gabler (1890); 1891–returns to Norway–last plays influenced by geography. The Master Builder, 1892; Little Eyolf, John Gabriel Borkman, When We Dead Awaken. Has a stroke in 1900, dies in 1906.
For our purposes–Ibsen originated in provincial Scandinavia (Norway had been under Danish rule until 1814), reflected in references in An Enemy of the People to "the north."
He had a long apprenticeship as writer and in the theater; becomes a European presence and phenomenon with first poetic and then realistic / naturalistic theater; establishes connections between drama (lived phenomena) and philosophy. A Doll’s House starts out with notes calling it “The Tragedy of Modern Times,” and it’s clear that Ibsen aspires to reach something like Greek drama but situated squarely in bourgeois society.
Fifty years of cultural history–a mood of steadily increasing prosperity and optimism in the long peaceful European summer, strikingly countermanded by a sense of spiritual entropy and encroaching loss.]
An Enemy of the People is a bit more stark than some of his other, more nuanced plays. Miller's adaptation apparently makes Dr. Stockmann a purer, less ambivalent figure than other translations.
One trait of Miller's which I find irritating is the editorializing in the stage directions. It's one thing for Miller to do this in Death of a Salesman or The Crucible, because they are his characters, but I would imagine actors find it confining to be told that Dr. Stockmann is "the eternal amateur--a lover of things, of people, of sheer living," etc. (23) Come on. Let the director and actor do some of the interpreting.
To today's work: We should try to stay within act I, though that gives enough indication already of where the plot will go.
What are some factors of that time which need our reflection?
Baths. Spas, etc.
Political radicalism / liberalism / conservatism. Revolutions of 1848 are in people's memories, and there is a developing labor movement shading into communism and opposition to factory owners / capitalists. Not as active in Scandinavia, which is something of a backwater.
Understanding of disease. There was some awareness of microbes as a cause of disease, but a lot of common misunderstanding as well--compare our own attitudes toward immunization. See p. 35
Opinions about food and drink--drinking a hot toddy, eating roast beef, smoking cigars
Importance of newspapers
We need some group work--7 minutes. The task is to find specific page references in act I which will let us make some initial inferences about the characters.
Dr. Stockmann
Peter Stockmann
Mrs. Stockmann
Petra Stockmann
Hovstad
Morten Kiil
Billing
Ibsen, An Enemy of the People, notes (Miller adaptation)
17 Play opens with characters eating. Why? They like their creature comforts . . .
Contrast later with Peter Stockmann, who is snipingly critical.
Becomes a way of contrasting Peter Stockmann's control and successful position with his brother, who has come out of hard times more recently (the north).
Kiil is Mrs. Stockmann's foster father (says Meyer). One of the Stockmann boys is named after him (Morten). Kiil is happy to eat their roast beef. (Roast beef signifies prosperity.) The butcher told him they bought roast beef--small town-ish.
Asklaksen is called a printer in Meyer's translation; Miller makes him a publisher, more in keeping with his level of control.
Stage directions about Peter Stockmann, 18. I don't know what to make of Miller's note about him standing in the center of the ship--meaning he's a careful, moderate man? He's a bachelor, whereas Dr. Stockmann has a family.
19 Class difference between Peter Stockmann and Billing; Billing nods to him, not vice versa. Stockmann sticks to his tea and toast in the evening--"healthier and more economical"
why does Dr. Stockmann knock on his own door???
20 Stage notes on Hovstad--has risen from the peasantry; radical.
What does it mean in this time to be a radical?
Hovstad is an opponent of the mayor--bit of exposition here, as the Doctor is a frequent contributor to the newspaper, esp. re baths.
21 Peter Stockmann--"spirit of tolerance"--discuss.
Exposition about the baths--European tradition of healthy waters. Lots of those in Germany, Poland, etc. Nałęczów for example.
22 Peter Stockmann characterizes himself as a "man of action," in contrast to his brother, the "man of ideas."
Comment to Mrs. Stockmann about Billing--"people without background"--snobbery
24 Peter's comment to his brother about their eating roast beef.
Dr. Stockmann--comment about their days "in that crooked corner of the north"--a bit like being in the UP, but worse. They deserve some comfort now (25)
26 Hints to the mayor about "conditions" with the water.
Peter Stockmann--address problems in "a businesslike manner, through the proper channels"--put a pin in this for later.
27 Peter Stockmann--"The individual really must subordinate himself to the over-all"--is this intrinsically wrong? Is it wrong in context?
Is this more a domestic crisis or a public crisis? I think a fascinating aspect of the play is how these are interwoven.
29 Editorial comment about Captain Horster, silent role.
30 Petra--note name, feminine version of Peter. Editorial comment about her being a "clear hope for the future"--not in Ibsen, of course. She brings a letter from the university.
31 Mrs. Stockmann--exposition about the letter and what it represents
Petra and translating an English novel--not just filling space.
33 Dr. Stockmann enters, with changed mien. Conversation about publicizing the findings. How do Billing and Hovstad react?
34 Dr. Stockmann sees the town controllers (his brother?) as baboons. The spa is a "pesthole." (Meyer uses "cesspit.")
36 He's kept quiet so as not to alarm people before he knew the facts. "Mere scientist" vs. "politicians." I told you so.
37 How does Mrs. Stockmann react? She has more of a sense of people in this case.
38 Hovstad and Billing anticipate a positive response from the public, and want to get on board with publicizing the letter--but they also see political and monetary advantage.
Scene 2 (in Miller's numbering)
39 Peter has returned the report. Fraternal rivalry (40)
40 Kiil enters--he's pleased with the news, but doesn't understand about microbes. "Nobody can see them but you"; exposition--Kiil was kicked off the town council, and so is happy to see them embarrassed.
44 Hovstad comes out with his interest--opposition to "a few bureaucrats"--resentment of the rich folks--it's a scandal to be publicized by the papers. 46, "give the underdog a lift"
46 Aslaksen--"I always try to be a moderate and careful man." "Temperance society"
Compare comments about Greeks and moderation
47 Business implications of closing down the spa. It's a "gold mine." Beware of "wild-eyed radicalism"--"the little man is behind you like a wall." Dr. Stockmann has the majority behind him (now).
49 "hypodermic"?? Compare "shaken out of its torpidity and its weak-kneed half-heartedness"
50 Dr. Stockmann and Mrs. Stockmann--talk about "the solid majority."
51 When Peter comes, the women have to leave during the serious conversation.
52 Info from the engineer--cost 300,000 crowns, and take two years. What to do in the meantime? Publicizing the pollution will ruin the town. What to do?
53 Proposal to keep it quiet and make little changes
54 "Without moral authority there can be no government"--so Peter's reputation has to be protected. Cover it up!
"The liberal, free, and independent press will stand up and do its duty!" Compare "The free press of our country will see to it that you do your duty" (Meyer's translation, 254)
55 "The public doesn't need new ideas."
how one-sided is this debate?
Conflict is out in the open (57)
59 Dr. and Mrs. Stockmann's discussion--"He's got all the power on his side" "Yes, but I have the truth on mine." Or: "What's the use of being right if you don't have the might?"
Petra's response?
60 Mrs. Stockmann--"there's so much injustice in the world! You've simply got to learn to live with it." Consequences for the family--back to poverty.
"I'm going to teach you what a man is." Mrs. Stockmann cries.